On two occasions when I have presented the idea of vocabulary frames
(see below) as a path to non-native speakers using vocabulary in more
typical ways
than they do when they work from an L1 starting point, one person in
each setting has politely insinuated that such an approach must produce
very
clichaic language.
What such people don't
realise is that language is full of prefabricated chunks. And that's
what makes speech and writing sound "natural". What I learn from this is
the need to start with different assumptions when introducing the value
of prefab language, vocabulary frames being but one type.
An example of a vocabulary frame is
X takes priority over Y
But
can any noun phrase occupy the X and Y positions? They are relatively
open semantic fields when compared with the next example.
In
X regales Y with Z
- regalers are unlikely to be trees
- the recipient is unlikely to be a TV
- the gift is unlikely to be a window
The semantic category of these three positions is
restricted, not by grammar rules, but by semantic preferences. If Z is
chocolates, then X is likely to be male and Y female. But if Z is the
far more likely stories/tales/adventures, Y is likely to be a group. The
Macmillan dictionary is on the right track with its entries for
regale. By saying what the word is and does, does it indicate what we can't do with the word? The first definition,
to entertain someone with a story, contradicts the illustrative sentence which has the plural
tales.
Likely = tendency, i.e., that which is probable.
In the slot and filler approach to grammar,
the tree regaled the TV with a window is a perfectly acceptable sentence. No syntactic rules are violated.